7 Responses to “War Crimes”

1. The “costs of war” « Upturned Earth, on April 23rd, 2008 at 4:35 pm Said:

   [...] (The boldface emphases are mine.) Larison’s interpretation was not, in other words, exactly unsupported by the text he was given to work with. [...]

2. OldNewEngland, on April 23rd, 2008 at 6:51 pm Said:

   I’ve got no sympathy for the Kraut or Nips. They picked the fight, we ended it. To hell with them. They learned their lesson well. Couldn’t help but learn it.

3. tedschan, on April 23rd, 2008 at 6:56 pm Said:

   I’ve got no sympathy for the Kraut or Nips. They picked the fight, we ended it. To hell with them. They learned their lesson well. Couldn’t help but learn it.

   So if ‘radical Muslims’ use the same sentiment to justify 9/11, it’s still ok, right?

4. Daniel Larison, on April 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm Said:

   It’s reassuring to know that wartime propaganda can still eliminate moral reasoning even after 60 years.

5. Eunomia » War Crimes (Follow-Up), on April 23rd, 2008 at 8:42 pm Said:

   [...] War Crimes  3 Daniel Larison, tedschan, OldNewEngland [...]

6. hegel186, on April 24th, 2008 at 8:10 am Said:

   It’s worth pointing out that there was indeed strategic objective in bombing Dresden: to show the Russians who were advancing on Germany how powerful our fire bombing techniques were. At that time, there were legitimate fears about Soviet domination under Stalin. We basically gave the Red Army a demonstration of American and British fire power, in case they had any ideas about extending their European empire. Hiroshima and Nagasaki served a similar purpose with the Russians. Whether this justifies the action is another question. But bombing Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki certainly DID fulfill a strategic objectives.

7. joed, on April 24th, 2008 at 8:32 am Said:

   Not sure if you read it but I recall that a book was published a few years ago that made a revisionist case for the Dresdin bombing- I read some reviews and it seemed like a plausible case.
   Another theory was given by a physicist who was in Bomber command during the war. In his book he argued that many were troubled over the late raids but that there was a sense that the bureaucracy
   could simply not stop and account for the rapidly changing ‘facts on the ground’ or air to be more precise (the virtual destruction of the Lufftwaffe for one) instead the lists were drawn up and simply followed automatically. Of course, no one made too much of a fuss because it was generally felt that Germany deserved whatever it did to England times 10 and few would object to getting a few kicks in after the bell. Churchill’s own squeamishness after the war over Dresdin not withstanding Bomber Command would have bombed 100 Dresdins had the clock not finally run out altogether.

   Are ‘good guy’ war crimes any better then ‘bad guy’ war crimes? Can any war, total or no be waged without such acts or is that what war is? I make no claims here. But I do think that when contemplating the sui genris qualities of 9/11 particularly in it’s immediate aftermath one can summon a lot of sympathy for those men who were charged with our safety. They were lost in a blizzard of terrifying uncertainties and if they erred by going too far with Khalid Shiek Mohammed I am prepared to forgive them. And if America could still be said to be a moral nation after ww2, surely we can survive whatever sullying we must endure as we grope our way through this amorphous and terrifying threat.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.